California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. A.L. (In re A.L.), 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 572, 38 Cal.App.5th 15 (Cal. App. 2019):
Penal Code section 243, subdivision (b) prohibits battery on a peace officer. It applies "[w]hen a battery is committed against the person of a peace officer [...] and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer [ ] in the performance of his or her duties[.]" The statute does not impose strict liability for battery on a peace officer; rather, it punishes only someone who actually knows or reasonably should know the victim is an officer performing his or her duty. "Knows or reasonably should know" is a criminal negligence standard. It allows the wrongful intent required for a criminal offense to be proven either by the perpetrator's own state of mind or based on what a reasonable person would be aware of in a given situation. (See Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 574, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 853 P.2d 507 ["Under the criminal negligence standard, knowledge of the risk is determined by an objective test: [I]f a reasonable person in defendant's position would have been aware of the risk involved, then defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness. "].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.